Subject:
|
Re: National nouns (was:Americans, North Americans, Americasians)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 May 2002 10:59:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
687 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Pedro Silva writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > United Statesian is so confusing to those of us who live so close to the
> > > border of the United States of Mexico. Which United Statesian are they
> > > refering to? I suppose one could call us United Statesian and them Estados
> > > Unidasian, but that seems a worse fracture of the language than "Statesian"
> > > is.
> >
> > (Note: there are other nations with "United States" on their name: Brazil is
> > oficcially "Federative Republic of the United States of Brazil". Obviously,
> > they call themselves brazilians)
>
> USians is the one I usually hear. (YooEssian)
>
> > > Besides, Mexicans (see how that gets rounded off? Note how it works
> > > the same for the USA) aren't Americans. Pause while the shrieking dies down...
> > >
> > > They are North Americans, continentally speaking; Central Americans,
> > > situationally speaking; or Americasians, globally speaking if you wish to
> > > speak of the "New World" i.e. the linked continents of North and South
> > > America: i.e. the Americas (plural, thus Americasian). Yes, Canadians are
> > > Americasians, or North Americans, not Americans.
> >
> > I dispute the term - isn't there a single America (i.e., plural of America
> > being the same word as the singular)?
>
> No; America is "place of Amerigo;" if you have two continents, they
> become "the places of Amerigo," or "Americas." I guess maybe by the
> rules of Latin it might be "Americae" but I think common usage trumps
> Latin rules for those who don't speak Latin. At least, that's the logic.
I stand corrected (I checked since for Portuguese too, in which case both
terms can be used; traditionally, we did not refer to a separation between
the two continents - now we apparently do)
> > Well, I know. But come to think of it, you are not alone. Other nations have
> > the misfortune of not having a proper noun to designate its inhabitants:
> > take Central African Republic, for instance; what do you call a national of
> > *that* state? Central-African-Republican?
>
> Technically, Central African (I think someone else said it). Remember
> that they used to be the Central African Empire.
That was before I was born! (J.B. Bokassa was overthrown in '79, I was born
in '81 :-)
> However, most of them
> would probably refer to themselves as Banda or Gbaya in English, unless
> they're from the major cities. (The national identifier is most common
> in urban settings, because in the countryside of the old tropical
> dependencies the indigenous social system was not destroyed by the
> colonial regime.) I think they'd go by the name Babanda or Bagbaya as
> West Bantu-speakers, but I don't know if the transliteration is
> different for Francophone Central Africa. Once the French become
> involved, nothing is clear anymore.
Hey! I happen to like France! (If you think it takes a french to complicate
things...)
> (By the way: Never call someone from Lesbos a Lesbian. They're always
> Lesbotians, and you might get punched in the face for your error.)
Noted! :-P
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
52 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
